Just out of curiosity, if a player hits a serve that he thinks is out, and is preparing to hit a second serve, and his opponent drills a return by him, why does it make him a moron to challenge his serve?

Click to expand...

If that were true Rafa would have been toweling off and adjusting himself before Nole hit a return.

Just out of curiosity, if a player hits a serve that he thinks is out, and is preparing to hit a second serve, and his opponent drills a return by him, why does it make him a moron to challenge his serve?

Click to expand...

except that's not what happened
watch that video again
he didn't think the serve was out, he made a play on the return
he did not stop play and challenge
he was NOT preparing to hit a second serve
he played the point
he split-stepped making a move for the ball but was wrong-footed and saw it went by him
he challenged out of DESPERATION, AFTER the point was over like he's done BEFORE
there's nothing clever or smart about it
it was a desperate act, nothing more
to answer your question, I didn't call Nadal 'moron' for doing it :mrgreen:

i said it before nadal is not the first person to do that. i recall federer doing it too a few years ago for example. in that case tho he did actually stop playing and the return wouldve been easily reachable had he tried. so it wasnt just a desperate act to try and undo a scorching returnwinner

plus i think fed was actually right about his serve being out back then..

Morally it was despicable, and reveals what a great sportsman Nadal is...

Click to expand...

What's really depressing is that he is a 10x grand slam champion yet he keeps stooping to these club level lows. Time wasting, on-court coaching, making his opponents wait before the match, "I'm so injured I could die", etc, etc.

When does a fight-till-the-end becomes win-at-any-cost??

He really doesn't need to; he's already a legend.

But I suppose it's the same society that adores reality-TV stars nowadays.

People calling their own lines sometimes yield to the temptation of cheating. It happens quite frequently that when a serve is barely out, the returner can't help hitting it (doesn't have time to stop the swing) and has to call it out right after he hit it. It also happens sometimes that if the return on a barely out serve turns out to be a winner, the returner stays quiet and pretends the serve was in. The server, who felt his serve was out, may not even have moved to the ball, but can't argue much about the call.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging your own serve if you think it was out. If you're wrong you lose the point and a challenge, and if you're right you get a second serve -- as well you should.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging your own serve if you think it was out. If you're wrong you lose the point and a challenge, and if you're right you get a second serve -- as well you should.

By challenging your own serve after the winner has gone by, aren't you getting 2 bites at the cherry? I wouldn't mind if they challenged while the point was still alive, but logistically that is impossible in this scenario.

I don't agree with the current interpretation of the rule. However, as it is currently within the rules, a player is entitled to the challenge, although I think this win at all costs attitude is poor sportsmanship.

I think that if he had made it look like he was playing the return, or if he hit the return back, it would have been like having two bites of the apple. He did not though. He thought the serve was out, and stopped. That is what I see happening.

By challenging your own serve after the winner has gone by, aren't you getting 2 bites at the cherry?

Click to expand...

Not really. The challenge is made after the return winner which is basically right after a call is made on the serve.

this win at all costs attitude is poor sportsmanship.

Click to expand...

Winning a point shouldn't really depend on sportsmanship. What matters is if the ball was in or out. The challenge system is a luxury to be used without guilt, and can make a big difference between winning and losing.

You hit the serve and wait for the return. The return is a winner. The point is over. That is your first bite. You must challenge before the point ends. It is too late to challenge. If you challenge now, that is your second bite.

Theoretically, if the opponent does a lob return, you challenge while the ball is in play. I would accept that.

I'm not sure what is your definition of good sportsmanship? Would you do anything that is within the rules to win a point? Does your notion of good sportsmanship relate to things other than winning points e.g. shaking hands?

By challenging your own serve after the winner has gone by, aren't you getting 2 bites at the cherry? I wouldn't mind if they challenged while the point was still alive, but logistically that is impossible in this scenario.

I don't agree with the current interpretation of the rule. However, as it is currently within the rules, a player is entitled to the challenge, although I think this win at all costs attitude is poor sportsmanship.

Click to expand...

It’s not reasonable at all to expect the challenge to be made within the fraction of a second it takes for the ball to be back on your own court. Sometimes not even the linesman can call it that quickly. If your opponent returns the serve and you hit it back, then of course you gave up the right to challenge the moment you hit it back. But not before.

Granting the challenge can only do one of two things, both of them harmless:

a) confirm that the return winner was legitimate because the serve was good (and you wasted a challenge) OR

b) confirm that your first serve was out, so you get a second serve.

Neither of those two outcomes causes the returner to lose the point outright.

But if the first serve was indeed out, and you refuse the server his right to challenge it, all you are doing is gifting the returner with a point he didn't win. Which means you are refusing to use the system for what it is intended: the correction of bad calls. An absurdity.

Not really. The challenge is made after the return winner which is basically right after a call is made on the serve.

Winning a point shouldn't really depend on sportsmanship. What matters is if the ball was in or out. The challenge system is a luxury to be used without guilt, and can make a big difference between winning and losing.

Click to expand...

Sportsmanship doesn't play any role at all in this situation. None. Exercising your right to challenge what you suspect was a wrong call that worked against you is not a mark of bad sportsmanship. It's precisely what you're supposed to do, and it's precisely why the challenge system is in place. Sportsmanship would come into the picture only if you felt your serve was out, your opponent missed the return, and he didn't challenge the serve. In that case, if you are feeling very nice and fair, you could perhaps tell your opponent you suspect your serve was out and he should consider challenging it. And if you're feeling angelically nice and fair, you could just tell the umpire you don't want that point, you want a second serve. But I think most of us would forgive a player for falling short of such rectitude, especially since we have no way of knowing if a player saw his serve out or not.

All that meant was he just stood there, because he thought the serve was out. He wasn't playing the return. Perfectly within his rights to challenge.

Oh, and also the fact that Pascal (one of the best chair umpires) saw it that way too.

Click to expand...

while we're at it, split-stepping lunging for the ball and then taking a few seconds asking the umpire "was it in?" before challenging also means "preparing to hit a second serve" :mrgreen:

Oh, don't drag Pascal into this. If you can't stand on your own feet, then stop with the BS. How do you know if Pascal saw it "the same way"..."Nadal preparing to hit a second serve" blahblahblah? How do you know why he granted the challenge? It could be for any reasons...for example...maybe he doesn't want to deal with a tantrum...maybe he does not want to be the guy who denied a challenge in a major final especially after the Nalbandian fiasco...etc. I don't know why he granted the challenge. You don't either so stop with the "Pascal saw it the same way" BS crap.
Umpires have to power to grant or deny a challenge. So what? It doesn't mean all umpire's judgement calls are correct. Umpires make mistake all the time. Nothing new there. Kader Nouni denied Nalbandian the challenge. He's the umpire. He MUST be correct, right? Every time an umpire over-rules a line call, he MUST be correct, right? I mean, afterall he IS the umpire.:mrgreen:

That's a good illustration of the principle. Roddick thinks his serve was out, so he doesn't move to the return, expecting an out call. The ball lands. The out call doesn't come and so he raises his hand to challenge. No matter where the return had landed, as long as it landed inside the court, it wouldn't have affected his right to challenge. If Monfils had missed the return, it would have been up to Monfils to challenge the call on the serve. And if Monfils didn't challenge, and Roddick wanted to show saintly sportsmanship, he could have declared his own serve out, though he certainly wouldn't have to. Parson Gorecki should offer some new insights on the morality of these problems. Like for example, if Roddick was a practising Catholic, should he mention his possible breach of sportsmanship during confession?

while we're at it, split-stepping lunging for the ball and then taking a few seconds asking the umpire "was it in?" before challenging also means "preparing to hit a second serve" :mrgreen:

Oh, don't drag Pascal into this. If you can't stand on your own feet, then stop with the BS. How do you know if Pascal saw it "the same way"..."Nadal preparing to hit a second serve" blahblahblah? How do you know why he granted the challenge? It could be for any reasons...for example...maybe he doesn't want to deal with a tantrum...maybe he does not want to be the guy who denied a challenge in a major final especially after the Nalbandian fiasco...etc. I don't know why he granted the challenge. You don't either so stop with the "Pascal saw it the same way" BS crap.
Umpires have to power to grant or deny a challenge. So what? It doesn't mean all umpire's judgement calls are correct. Umpires make mistake all the time. Nothing new there. Kader Nouni denied Nalbandian the challenge. He's the umpire. He MUST be correct, right? Every time an umpire over-rules a line call, he MUST be correct, right? I mean, afterall he IS the umpire.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Good effort. But you still make no sense. Love the way you compare that with the nalbandian deal.

It's pretty much common knowledge that the players are able to ask the umpire for quick confirmation before challenging. He stopped play, asked a quick question and challenged it.

It's also pretty obvious that pascal saw it that way too based on him telling Novak that he can do that. M starting to think that you just like to make things up to get people to argue with you.

^^^ poor reading comprehension
there was NO comparison with the Nalbandian incident :mrgreen:

You're blind, dude. Get your head out of Nadal's ass maybe you'll be able to see more clearly. How the hell you "saw Nadal preparing to hit a second serve as a scorching return went by" is beyond me. It's your hallucination. To top it off...claiming Pascal saw it the same way you do is hilarious. Unless you're Pascal himself. :mrgreen: Whatever, have fun hallucinating. I'm done talking to moron.

^^^ poor reading comprehension
there was NO comparison with the Nalbandian incident :mrgreen:

You're blind, dude. Get your head out of Nadal's ass maybe you'll be able to see more clearly. How the hell you "saw Nadal preparing to hit a second serve as a scorching return went by" is beyond me. It's your hallucination. To top it off...claiming Pascal saw it the same way you do is hilarious. Unless you're Pascal himself. :mrgreen: Whatever, have fun hallucinating. I'm done talking to moron.

Click to expand...

Wow just like gorecki. Another 14 year old that likes to sit behind his computer throwing out insults.

The comment about getting my head out of nadal's ass was funny too. You really have no clue about how the rules work do you? You're such an asset to this site.

And if you can honestly sit there and say that Pascal saying "he can do that" does not imply that he felt Nadal followed the correct procedure to challenge, then you just even more solidify the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I was watching a tennis channel replay of the AO final when hawkeye over-ruled a line call at one point Navratilova said something like "well, the lines-person missed that one but the line calls in this tournament have been outstanding." And I'm pretty sure she was not being sarcastic. It struck me as odd because pretty much everyone else has said the line calling all tournament was god-awful. I'm assuming that it was probably a frequent topic of discussion throughout the grounds among players or particularly press and broadcasters, so it makes me wonder how she could have been so unaware.

Am I must be blind, but it looked to me like Roddick stopped while the ball was in play. Isn't that different from the Nadal one?

You could say the challenge was after the point finished but I think it is fair to say stopping while the ball was in play was a sufficient prerequisite for a legitimate challenge.

Click to expand...

They both hit the serve, looked confused that it wasn't called out, split step, and then challenged. The difference is that Nadal asked the chair umpire a quick question in between the split step and the challenge, which it is widely seen that the players can ask a question before challenging.

I was watching a tennis channel replay of the AO final when hawkeye over-ruled a line call at one point Navratilova said something like "well, the lines-person missed that one but the line calls in this tournament have been outstanding." And I'm pretty sure she was not being sarcastic. It struck me as odd because pretty much everyone else has said the line calling all tournament was god-awful. I'm assuming that it was probably a frequent topic of discussion throughout the grounds among players or particularly press and broadcasters, so it makes me wonder how she could have been so unaware.

Click to expand...

The only people saying the line calling was lousy is this message board. This is a parallel universe.

They both hit the serve, looked confused that it wasn't called out, split step, and then challenged. The difference is that Nadal asked the chair umpire a quick question in between the split step and the challenge, which it is widely seen that the players can ask a question before challenging.

Click to expand...

If Nadal did stop, then I will take back everything I have said. I can't find the video in you tube. Does anyone have a link or the score so I can look it up?

The only people saying the line calling was lousy is this message board. This is a parallel universe.

Click to expand...

Actually I hadn't followed any threads about AO here. But every other television commentator, as well as Tennis.com writers, and ESPN writers, were ripping the line calling pretty hard. That's why it's surprising Navratilova wouldn't have heard some of the buzz that surely must have been happening in press circles, let alone player/coach circles.

Line calling has changed since the challenge system and hawkeye. Part of line calling now is up to the players since they can challenge. I think line judges now try to make their calls as soon as possible, presumeably to give the player more time to make a challenge and avoid any doubt about their call. And maybe in their haste to make a quick call they are making more mistakes. But as long as the player has a challenge remaining it doesn't matter as much if the call is precisely correct or not because the player can challenge.

They both hit the serve, looked confused that it wasn't called out, split step, and then challenged. The difference is that Nadal asked the chair umpire a quick question in between the split step and the challenge, which it is widely seen that the players can ask a question before challenging.

Click to expand...

The difference is Roddick stopped playing while he still had the chance to hit a forehand. He had a choice to continue playing but he didn't. It was very clear.

Nadal, however, had absolutely no chance to reach the winner ROS. It was very far from him, and he only challenged after Toni (as TV replays showed) hand-signaled that the ball was out.

Line calling has changed since the challenge system and hawkeye. Part of line calling now is up to the players since they can challenge. I think line judges now try to make their calls as soon as possible, presumeably to give the player more time to make a challenge and avoid any doubt about their call. And maybe in their haste to make a quick call they are making more mistakes. But as long as the player has a challenge remaining it doesn't matter as much if the call is precisely correct or not because the player can challenge.

Click to expand...

I don't think linesmen are calling any earlier.

I wouldn't say it doesn't matter if a call is correct or not. The player in the dominant position in the point loses their advantage.

Seems like some hate toward Nadal on this thread. Maybe you should blame the challenge system and/or the umpire instead. Why blame Nadal for trying to win the point?
I wanted Nadal to win. Doesn't mean I blame Djokovic for trying to win every point either. Do you think Nadal could afford losing any points in that match? Or maybe he should just bow to Djokovic every time he hits a return winner.

Fine. However I heard the commentators during the AO say the lines people often predict their calls before the ball bounces. That would probably be to make a faster call.

.

Click to expand...

Predicting a call is jumping a call and that always leads to mistakes.

Secondly, tennis commentators though the years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, evidenced by their own words that they understand next to nothing about on court officiating, line calling, chair procedures or the rules of tennis...and this especially applies to the former players turned commentators.